A fact from Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 9 April 2021 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard.
This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Law Enforcement. Please Join, Create, and Assess.Law EnforcementWikipedia:WikiProject Law EnforcementTemplate:WikiProject Law EnforcementLaw enforcement articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles
Latest comment: 3 years ago13 comments6 people in discussion
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
Looked at both citations and all, including the hooks. ALT1 is more interesting than ALT0 (Although both are in their own way), so I'm choosing that. However, Earwig's Copyvio Detector shows a 84.5% chance of similarly with the UK Human Rights Blog. Check here for reference and see where you can make the edits to avoid plagiarism issues. Ominae (talk) 02:40, 16 March 2021 (UTC)Reply
@Ominae: Thanks for your review. I've looked at the plagiarism detector, but the match appears to be because of the block quotes that are used in the article, which highlight the important parts of what the judges thought and are taken from the judgments (and cited as such). I'd looked at other Wikipedia pages on law cases, and they've also seem to make use of block quotes. The article also uses and cites the Human Rights Blog in the 'Significance' section. In light of this, would keeping the article in its current state be acceptable? Bibliopole5795 (talk) 00:39, 17 March 2021 (UTC)Reply
I have added the missing quotes identified by the copyvio detector and added a "citation needed". I think you ask a lot of the reviewer to not identify the specific clause you use to back up your hooks. I didnt intend to do a review but it took a while to unpick. I have just read the entire judgement and I cannot see the place where they specifically and unilaterally agree on a duty of care to the public. In fact there are clauses that specifically warn against this. If you add "generally" to the first hook then its a goer as I have added a ref to where I think this is true. The citation needed has to be taken care of and as the DYKadvice says "strongly suggest" that a source is provided next time. ALT1 IMO doesnt explain the context of the blog comment quoted or the law that is being clarified, but it is a correct quote. I would suggest that the main hook could be ticked if you agree with my evaluation. Victuallers (talk) 14:43, 31 March 2021 (UTC) ALT2 would need some else to tick Victuallers (talk) 15:27, 31 March 2021 (UTC)Reply
@Victuallers: I've just had a re-read through of the judgment myself and I agree with what you said. I've re-wrote the first hook as ALT-3 to better fit what the judges actually said, in line with the quote you provided in the ref. As for ALT 2, I actually really like it and I think it might be better than what I originally wrote? I'd be happy to wait for another assessment to figure out which hook to use. Bibliopole5795 (talk) 01:05, 2 April 2021 (UTC)Reply
Alt1 is OK and Alt3 is better, but the nominator likes Alt2. Can someone review Alt2 please?
Looked at both citations and all, including the hooks. ALT1 is more interesting than ALT0 (Although both are in their own way), so I'm choosing that. However, Earwig's Copyvio Detector shows a 84.5% chance of similarly with the UK Human Rights Blog. Check here for reference and see where you can make the edits to avoid plagiarism issues. Ominae (talk) 02:40, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
Okay. I think a new review is in order. Thanks for the answer. Ominae (talk) 02:23, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
Alt1 is OK and Alt3 is better, but the nominator likes Alt2. Can someone review Alt2 please?
